Author
Topic: Cinema (Read 55404 times)

Recently, i watched Tom Cruise's Jack reacher & Oblivion. I really didn't like oblivion that much,but Jack Reacher was somewhat good ! I am waiting for the Will Smith's After Earth..Initial Reviews have described it as disappointing, but i m gonna ignore those !! Its Will smith afterall !!!Also on my List is Great Gatsby, Fast6

&

The Man of Steel( Damn, Its Awwweeessssoooommmmmeee )

Logged

You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

Jack Reacher was surprisingly good. I will go to the cinema tonight to watch Oblivion. I've heard many things about it, and some even compare it to the Space Odyssey which is too bold if you ask me.

About Man of Steel. It would be nice to see something different. But I must admit I don't like superhero movies, besides Batman of course.That's the only comic book I read actually. Should be interesting to see Nolan's part on the story. I will watch it, but not looking forward to it desperately.

I'm more fan of movies without excessive action and CGI things. Thats probably why I enjoyed TDK trilogy so much, for being more that typical and campy cb movie.

Watched 'Das Boot' last night for the 1st time and its freaking awesome!

I watched Oblivion too but it was heavily flawed and hollow, so didn't like it much. As to Great Gatsby, I read the book which is much better than the movie I am sure. Besides, I can't stand Leonardo. Don't like movies like Batman or Iron Man - not even remotely close to reality.

A couple of blockbusters like Brad Pitt's World War Z and Matt Damon's Elysium looks promising but not sure though if they'll be able to live up to their potential.

I watched Oblivion too but it was heavily flawed and hollow, so didn't like it much. As to Great Gatsby, I read the book which is much better than the movie I am sure. Besides, I can't stand Leonardo. Don't like movies like Batman or Iron Man - not even remotely close to reality.

A couple of blockbusters like Brad Pitt's World War Z and Matt Damon's Elysium looks promising but not sure though if they'll be able to live up to their potential.

Batman movies are close to reality(last 3), thats why I really like them. They reflect current socio-political situations in world.Others like Iron Man etc I don't like, aimed at kids mostly.

Watched Oblivion and it was only solid, with terrible beginning. It lived up a little after 'cabin scene'. The beginning was too campy filled with cheesy one liners.I've seen many things they stole from other movies such as Moon, Blade Runner, 2001 which are far more superior movies.So its solid sci-fi flick, but nothing more.

I watched Oblivion too but it was heavily flawed and hollow, so didn't like it much. As to Great Gatsby, I read the book which is much better than the movie I am sure. Besides, I can't stand Leonardo. Don't like movies like Batman or Iron Man - not even remotely close to reality.

A couple of blockbusters like Brad Pitt's World War Z and Matt Damon's Elysium looks promising but not sure though if they'll be able to live up to their potential.

Batman movies are close to reality(last 3), thats why I really like them. They reflect current socio-political situations in world.Others like Iron Man etc I don't like, aimed at kids mostly.

Watched Oblivion and it was only solid, with terrible beginning. It lived up a little after 'cabin scene'. The beginning was too campy filled with cheesy one liners.I've seen many things they stole from other movies such as Moon, Blade Runner, 2001 which are far more superior movies.So its solid sci-fi flick, but nothing more.

Well, I don't like politics so I always avoid that subject matter. Even less reason for me to actually watch Batman. Anyway, the idea of batman or iron man is pure fictional. There's no truth to that.

I did watch the first two Batman though but simply from a directorial point of view. It has lost its comic sense a long time ago. It used to be light and now it's all too serious. Dark and gloomy. Basically it has lost its essence a long time ago.

Anyway Luggy, I should tell you that I watched Moon only a few weeks ago and it was very good. Blade Runner I've seen at least a few years ago. Another good movie. These are true sci-fi movies.

I watched Oblivion too but it was heavily flawed and hollow, so didn't like it much. As to Great Gatsby, I read the book which is much better than the movie I am sure. Besides, I can't stand Leonardo. Don't like movies like Batman or Iron Man - not even remotely close to reality.

A couple of blockbusters like Brad Pitt's World War Z and Matt Damon's Elysium looks promising but not sure though if they'll be able to live up to their potential.

Batman movies are close to reality(last 3), thats why I really like them. They reflect current socio-political situations in world.Others like Iron Man etc I don't like, aimed at kids mostly.

Watched Oblivion and it was only solid, with terrible beginning. It lived up a little after 'cabin scene'. The beginning was too campy filled with cheesy one liners.I've seen many things they stole from other movies such as Moon, Blade Runner, 2001 which are far more superior movies.So its solid sci-fi flick, but nothing more.

Well, I don't like politics so I always avoid that subject matter. Even less reason for me to actually watch Batman. Anyway, the idea of batman or iron man is pure fictional. There's no truth to that.

I did watch the first two Batman though but simply from a directorial point of view. It has lost its comic sense a long time ago. It used to be light and now it's all too serious. Dark and gloomy. Basically it has lost its essence a long time ago.

Anyway Luggy, I should tell you that I watched Moon only a few weeks ago and it was very good. Blade Runner I've seen at least a few years ago. Another good movie. These are true sci-fi movies.

Trust me, Batman has always been dark and serious in comics.(At least the good comics) He's not typical superhero character. The Dark Knight trilogy showed how Batman movies should be done. Well they got at least 90% right.

You didn't understand me, its not political movie. Its ANTI-political at best. I hate politics as well. It has its socio-political SUBTEXT, criticizing the society and reflecting pretty much the world we live in.

If you are talking about 1st two Burton Batman movies, well only 1st is good but its not true to the source material. TDK trilogy (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises) however are masterpieces in my opinion, and it has its place among some classics. Brilliant monologues and character development. The score is amazing, and old-school real time fill-making is astonishing.

Yep we agree on Moon and Blade Runner, and 2001: A Space Odyssey is probably my favorite movie of all time. Those are perfect 3 sci-fi movies that lean more towards science than fiction, well 2001 much more though.

Trust me, Batman has always been dark and serious in comics.(At least the good comics) He's not typical superhero character. The Dark Knight trilogy showed how Batman movies should be done. Well they got at least 90% right.

You didn't understand me, its not political movie. Its ANTI-political at best. I hate politics as well. It has its socio-political SUBTEXT, criticizing the society and reflecting pretty much the world we live in.

If you are talking about 1st two Burton Batman movies, well only 1st is good but its not true to the source material. TDK trilogy (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises) however are masterpieces in my opinion, and it has its place among some classics. Brilliant monologues and character development. The score is amazing, and old-school real time fill-making is astonishing.

Yep we agree on Moon and Blade Runner, and 2001: A Space Odyssey is probably my favorite movie of all time. Those are perfect 3 sci-fi movies that lean more towards science than fiction, well 2001 much more though.

Kubrick is a genius, I also recommend Dr.Stranglove.

I've watched all the Batman movies except for the last one - The Dark Knight Rises. The reason why I genuinely wanted to see Batman Begins and The Dark Night is because of Christopher Nolan. He's one of my very favourite directors (loved his work in Memento, Following, The Prestige, Insomnia etc. but didn't like Inception at all) and so I had high hopes. What he did with these movies is that he made them even darker. He couldn't bring anything new but only what his known for. I just personally don't think it suits the premise. And the premise is still a political on if not utterly politics. But I don't have too much problems with as long it offers what its known for. I also had a feeling, like Star Trek, it's trying to get audience of all ages and not just the teenagers. I found that disturbing because it's now moving away from its originality.

Anyway, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree in this case.

2001: A Space Odyssey is my all-time top favourite movie given any genre btw. I tend to watch it every few months. It's so ahead of its time. My 2nd all-time top favourite movie is Solaris, albeit the Russian version; The US version is not so bad but not as detailed or slow and I personally felt George Clooney was a misfit. It's a true sci-fi so that they should have taken a character artist rather than a very high profile actor like him.

Stalker (the Russian version), if you are interested, is another gem but not a sci-fi but itís a very, complicated movie. Iíll give you two thumbs up if you get it on your first view but you can't read anything about it before watching it. Thereís no genius in that.

Fair enough, I respect your opinion on the Batman movies. However I do believe it reflects Batman perfectly.A true Batman movies, especially Batman Begins, just like in the comics.I definitely loved that he wanted to turn his movies to adults. Thats why I really like about it. Teens and kids could watch it too, but its simply not aimed at them, like the rest movies from that genre.On a side note, if you have corruption, oppression, social problems etc it doesn't necessarily mean those are political hints. Chris Nolan is way smarter than that.

And yes, I enjoyed every movie he's made. Including short Doodlebug hehe The only movie that's only solid but not great is Insomnia and that's the only movie he didn't write.I like the complexity and thinking in movies, so I enjoyed Inception as well.

Wow we have same favorite movie of all time I don't watch it that regularity, but its safe to say I watched it more than 5 times.I simply don't like watching my favorite movies that many times.

I liked US version of Solaris but I agree on Clooney.

As for Stalker... It has been on my watchlist for a long time, recommended by my close friends.As I've said I like complicated movies and I pay close attention when it comes to the movies, and I simply HATE reading any infos, any spoilers like damn trailers, pics etc before actually watching the movie.So don't worry and don't be surprised if I get it the first time

I enjoyed every minute of it. Slow pacing kinda enhanced character development to fully appreciate this wonderful film.I can't say what I enjoyed more, the endless dialogues between the writer and professor, wife's and Stalker's monologues or the ending.

Talking about the ending though, I believe it should be left as it is, ambiguous. Do the objects on a table represent 3 men in the Zone, and the table the zone itself(metaphorically speaking), or we are to believe that his kid does actually posses telepathic powers, its for audience to decide.

The dialogues and monologues are most powerful imo. The philosophy in it is simply astonishing.

Stalker, who feeds on people's happiness, who desperately tries to make himself happy while helping the others to find happiness, in a world where all hope and spirituality is almost completely lost.I think 'the Zone' finally ate him up with the last tour. His travelers this time don't look for anything in particular, they are without hope, without faith. Looking for trivial stuff like finally getting a revenge to a man that slept with his wife.Are we to believe that's exactly what happened with his ex customers? They all realized, there's no such a room in the Zone and that's why he never saw them again? The movie doesn't show it, but I believe so.

He is finally tired, only God knows how much. He's losing faith in people.He does represent something I'm not. But I definitely share his vision of helping others by making them happy. The goodness in him is priceless, and his wife sees it in him. She's able to live with it, with a man who's trying to find faith and hope in a world that looks very hostile and dark.Like he's always desperately trying to say: I don't care in what you believe, just believe!

I could go on and on about this movie, but lets save the details for later hehe.That's just my first impression, so I had to share the experience while its still kinda fresh.

Fair enough, I respect your opinion on the Batman movies. However I do believe it reflects Batman perfectly.A true Batman movies, especially Batman Begins, just like in the comics.I definitely loved that he wanted to turn his movies to adults. Thats why I really like about it. Teens and kids could watch it too, but its simply not aimed at them, like the rest movies from that genre.On a side note, if you have corruption, oppression, social problems etc it doesn't necessarily mean those are political hints. Chris Nolan is way smarter than that.

And yes, I enjoyed every movie he's made. Including short Doodlebug hehe The only movie that's only solid but not great is Insomnia and that's the only movie he didn't write.I like the complexity and thinking in movies, so I enjoyed Inception as well.

Wow we have same favorite movie of all time I don't watch it that regularity, but its safe to say I watched it more than 5 times.I simply don't like watching my favorite movies that many times.

I liked US version of Solaris but I agree on Clooney.

As for Stalker... It has been on my watchlist for a long time, recommended by my close friends.As I've said I like complicated movies and I pay close attention when it comes to the movies, and I simply HATE reading any infos, any spoilers like damn trailers, pics etc before actually watching the movie.So don't worry and don't be surprised if I get it the first time

I will probably watch it tonight...

If you enjoy artsy movies I recommend Japanese 'Confessions'...

I like watching my favourite movies but not all as there are some, like for instance Shawshank Redemption, can only be seen once but I admit, I've watched it twice but there's a significant time gap between both views. On the other hand, I've watched the movies like Se7en or Fallen or Fight Club or Mulholland Drive and a few others many times, because with each viewing I gain new perspectives and I discover something new and it's really great in that sense. Some movies just simply require one too many views.

I'll keep Confessions in mind. Recently I watched Cube, the premise was excellent but it wasn't done as intelligently and fell kind of apart towards the end but still interesting. I also watched A Prophet - very good movie but not a sci-fi. Another Earth was also great and a cross between a sci-fi and paranormal.

The other two movies I watched were Identity and Session 9 - the latter in particular was excellent though I admit it could have done a better job as it needed some lifts in some parts of the story. I'd say both of these moves are more of paranormal genre.

I enjoyed every minute of it. Slow pacing kinda enhanced character development to fully appreciate this wonderful film.I can't say what I enjoyed more, the endless dialogues between the writer and professor, wife's and Stalker's monologues or the ending.

Talking about the ending though, I believe it should be left as it is, ambiguous. Do the objects on a table represent 3 men in the Zone, and the table the zone itself(metaphorically speaking), or we are to believe that his kid does actually posses telepathic powers, its for audience to decide.

The dialogues and monologues are most powerful imo. The philosophy in it is simply astonishing.

Stalker, who feeds on people's happiness, who desperately tries to make himself happy while helping the others to find happiness, in a world where all hope and spirituality is almost completely lost.I think 'the Zone' finally ate him up with the last tour. His travelers this time don't look for anything in particular, they are without hope, without faith. Looking for trivial stuff like finally getting a revenge to a man that slept with his wife.Are we to believe that's exactly what happened with his ex customers? They all realized, there's no such a room in the Zone and that's why he never saw them again? The movie doesn't show it, but I believe so.

He is finally tired, only God knows how much. He's losing faith in people.He does represent something I'm not. But I definitely share his vision of helping others by making them happy. The goodness in him is priceless, and his wife sees it in him. She's able to live with it, with a man who's trying to find faith and hope in a world that looks very hostile and dark.Like he's always desperately trying to say: I don't care in what you believe, just believe!

I could go on and on about this movie, but lets save the details for later hehe.That's just my first impression, so I had to share the experience while its still kinda fresh.

I am very, very glad you enjoyed this great movie. I watched it quite a few years ago but after reading your post, I feel I need to watch it again right away.

Anyway, it is very, very slow pace but it's essential for this kind of movie to be this slow. They don't make these kind of movies for everyone and it has its own audience that it specifically targets. So the ending is up to them for interpretation and it's deliberately ambiguous for that reason. No point making a movie like this if it's not going to generate some thought upon viewing. It's only the mainstream movies that tend to explain everything as they go and leave nothing for the audience to chew on. In other words, it's not for intellectual purpose but more for entertaining reason.

The dialogues and monologues are the best part of this movie and perhaps the main ingredient. It's deliberately chosen different people of different backgrounds to give different perspectives. The movie I remember which is slightly similar to this one but albeit not as flawless as this one and certainly nowhere near as intellectual, is the film The Man From Earth. I didn't like it much but you may find it interesting. I found it quite dense in its trying.

The journey to self discovery by the stalker is very interesting but let me watch it again to refresh my memory as well. I really think you have managed to capture the main essence of this film very well. It's not very easy but it's not supposed to be easy. I'll post some thoughts by this guy later who I thought had captured the essence very well too.

This film is loosely based on Arkady and Boris Strugatsky's "Road Side Picnic," and Tarkovsky tried, as he did with his "Solaris" (1972), to downplay the science fiction aspect of "Stalker." Except for a brief explanation at the film's beginning, Tarkovsky chooses to ignore the speculations as to what could have created The Zone, and the changes within it.

With "Stalker," Tarkovsky marks the shift toward his later style, with the long takes throughout the film averaging one minute in length, with many four minutes or longer. These long scenes in turn rely heavily on the talent of the actors to sustain the mood, like Writer's long monologue in the sand mogul room. In "Stalker," Tarkovsky is definitively more systematic in his use of black-and-white (sepia) and color stocks than he had been in his previous works. In the swamp scene and Stalker's dream, Tarkovsky reverts to is more usual convention, where dreams are shown in black-and-white, and reality in color. However, the last scene is in color, implying a leakage of the powers of The Zone into the outside reality.

As always in Tarkovsky's films, the natural world is present. Water, which used to be the source of life, a redemptive force and a center of regeneration, is now mostly a symbol of decay and pollution. The only exception is in the dream scene in the swamp, where the water is somewhat restored to its positive symbols. In the last scene in The Zone, the men, resigned to their limitations and weakness, sit outside The Room, as the rain falls inside, gently blocking them from entering.

The wind is associated with the spiritual, and the earth is a positive force. Upon arriving in The Zone, Stalker's first act is to lie down and embrace it, and in the swamp, all three men lay on it. Like a miracle, there is the luxuriant, if dangerous, Nature ever present in the Zone, in contrast to the polluted outside world, where it is totally absent.

And then there is the mysterious dog, which first appears in the swamp scene. Up to this point, the men felt totally alienated from their environment, outside and inside The Zone, and it is at the very moment when they start to meditate and remember, that the dog appears: The Zone is its territory. But at the end of the film, the dog has followed Stalker outside the Zone, showing that even there, the hope that the men were looking for inside The Zone must somehow also exist here, outside, as the dog establishes its own space even though it becomes domesticated in the process.

Although Tarkovsky usually favors classics by such composers as Bach, Pergolesi, or Purcell, the musical score in "Stalker" consists almost exclusively of Eduard Artemiev's electronic music mixed with some folk melodies, contributing efficiently to the hypnotic atmosphere of the film.

The performances of Nikolia Grinko and Anatoly Solonitsyn, as two lost souls in search of an answer, are convincing. Aleksandr Kajdanovsky is outstanding in his role of a tormented and somewhat pathetic Stalker. Although Alisa Frejndlikh's appearance in the film is restricted to only few scenes, there are most powerful.

In "Stalker," Tarkovsky opposes a world in decline, polluted and sterile, to a verdant Zone, which has gotten the better of any human enterprises. He portrays a society which has severed all links with nature, with its own past, and lost its spiritual or moral bearings.

"Stalker" explores the conflict between science, rationalism, materialism, and cynicism versus spirituality, faith, art, and love. The three men embody different philosophical principles. Professor is a rational being who tries to understand the world according to the law of physics. He justifies his going into The Zone as purely scientific curiosity. Writer belongs to those people who cannot accept the world as it is. He is well aware of humanity's decay and of his own as well, but he abhors science, which he does not understand, and would rather look for answers in the supernatural. Writer believes in the redemptive power of art, but he has lost his own inspiration.

Stalker is alone in showing an inclination toward faith. He knows The Zone and has total faith in it, speaking about it as if it were a living being. Stalker respects and fears The Zone at the same time, as he recognizes its potential to provide comfort to the wretched ones who, like himself, have lost all hope, but at the same time it punishes who so ever infringes its rules. This, of course, is how most religious people see their own Gods.

The redemptive power of love is personified by Stalker's wife. Her love and devotion is the final miracle which opposes cynicism and the emptiness of the modern world. All these ideas are clearly expressed at the film's end, as she addresses the audience in her heartfelt monologue.

As the three characters reach The Room, they can ask for their dearest wishes to be granted, but this would require a painful and searching self-examination, with the realization that what they thought they wanted was not exactly what they now really want. For Professor, his true aim was to destroy The Room, which was beyond his scientific understanding. Writer had said that the purpose of his journey was to regain his genius, his inspiration. However, on the threshold of The Room, he realizes that he may not worthy of accepting The Room's gift. As for Stalker, he asks for nothing of The Room, his only purpose to make the trip being to bring hope and happiness to those most retched than he.

"Stalker" is certainly Tarkovsky's most complex and most beautiful film, and is worthy of many viewings to appreciate its aesthetic and depth. Unfortunately, the word limitation of this review does not allow one to explore all the intricacies of this extraordinary film and do it justice.

Yeah I haven't read the book, and as I see they are almost completely different.I guess its fair to say that movie is much deeper and complex, since its not remotely based on the Zone being invaded by aliens. That was shown as irrelevant in the movie.The movie is more spiritual, philosophical and complex. Its very powerful.

I haven't watched A prophet and Session 9, but I've watched every movie you mentioned including Cube, The Man from Earth, Another Earth, Identity, Mullholland Dr, Se7ev, Fallen and Fight Club.-The Cube kinda 'ripped' Stalker with entering the rooms using bait to see if its safe or not hehe. Cube is solid movie, but only 1st.-Identity is one of my favorite psy thrillers if you mean the one with John Cusack. Awesome movie.-Another Earth is really interesting but not THAT great.-The Man from Earth is special and unique. I really enjoyed it.-Mullholland Dr. is aces and definitely the best Lynch's movie I've seen.-Se7en is one of my favorite thrillers of all time.-I watched Fallen many years ago and thought it was too wierd, I remember only part of it. Gotta watch it again.-Fight Club is one of my favorite movies of all time alongside 2001, The Dark Knight which is similar in many ways because of its critique at society, Dr Strangelove, One Flew Over... etc etc

Another awesome movie thats low budget, very intellectual and kinda complex is Pi, I guess you probably watched it, if you haven't though. Try it out. Very good movie.And The Seventh Seal of course, another great movie about god, spirituality, faith....

i saw the great gatsby 2 days back.. nice drama movie..not my usual cup of tea, but it seemed like a good romance drama. Baz Luhrmann has done a good job. !! Dicaprio was fine as always..I wonder whether he gets older or not..Tobey Maguire as Nick was good..i found his narration a bit monotonous & his acting could've been a bit better Amitabh Bachchan as Meyer Wolfsheim was charming in a menacing way.Steve Bisley was excellent.

Overall, i'd say if you like some good drama, you can definately go for this one.

After earth is releasing this friday..I m planning on watching it on monday..anybody saw it yet ? i read an interview of M. Shyamalan, where he stated that Jaden smith is actually the action hero of the movie. Kinda discouraged after reading it, but i m gonna see it.

Logged

You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

watched after earth few days back..Avoid at all cost..poor story, weak plot, average performance by the smiths..

You'll find Man of steel to be good if you're a fan of general zod..otherwise, its a bit dull the whole time..Graphics are beautiful..Michael Shannon as General zod was amazing..Henry Cavill for superman was a nice choice.

Also, i watched Monsters University..If you liked the first part( Monsters Inc. ), you'll like this one too..Its a prequel to Monsters Inc. Personally, i had lotsa fun watching this one with my friends.

Mehh watched MoS finally. Really not that impressed, but can't say its that bad either.

Too many godamn CGI action fights etc. This supposed to be more of an origin story, so I really expected more of his early childhood not some minor flashbacks. Another chance is missed just like in Prometheus. Beautiful graphics, but so unnecessary at times with overlong action scenes.Acting was great and score good but a bit unnoticed because I think it wasn't loud enough.

And that church scene? what was that lol?Also too campy and cheesy at times, yet good try to make it more dark and serious.

Overall not that bad, but I was never a fan of Superman or any superhero besides Batman in the 1st place anyway.